On 5/7/2024 4:31 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 05:29:31AM +0000, Mingwei Zhang wrote:
>
>
>> +int perf_get_mediated_pmu(void)
>> +{
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&perf_mediated_pmu_mutex);
>> + if (refcount_inc_not_zero(&nr_mediated_pmu_vms))
>> + goto end;
>> +
>> + if (atomic_read(&nr_include_guest_events)) {
>> + ret = -EBUSY;
>> + goto end;
>> + }
>> + refcount_set(&nr_mediated_pmu_vms, 1);
>> +end:
>> + mutex_unlock(&perf_mediated_pmu_mutex);
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(perf_get_mediated_pmu);
>
> Blergh... it seems I never got my perf guard patches merged :/, but
> could we please write this like:
>
> int perf_get_mediated_pmu(void)
> {
> guard(mutex)(&perf_mediated_pmu_mutex);
> if (refcount_inc_not_zero(&nr_mediated_pmu_vms))
> return 0;
>
> if (atomic_read(&nr_include_guest_events))
> return -EBUSY;
>
> refcount_set(&nr_mediated_pmu_vms, 1);
> return 0;
> }
>
> And avoid adding more unlock goto thingies?
>yes, this works. And code is cleaner.
thanks
